VAL ERI E KL I NE, Plaintiff,

v. SETH M. WI L L I AMS, et al. , Def endants. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

Civil Action No. 05-01102 ( HHK)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION AND ORDER

(April 25, 2012) Plaintiff Valerie Kl i n e co m m en ced this action pro se on May 27, 2005. The case was dismiss ed on August 8, 2006 and th e d ismiss al was aff irmed on November 26, 2007. Currently befor e the Court is Plaintiff’s [32] Motion to Seal Documents C o n t aining Protected Information (“Motion to Seal”) , filed on April 19, 2012. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal shall be DENI ED WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE. LEGAL STANDARD “[T] he decision as to acc ess [t o judicial rec ords] is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the re l ev an t fac ts and circ umstances of the particula r case .” United States v. Hubbard , 650 F.2d 292, 316-17 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting Nixon

v. W arner Commc’ns, Inc. , 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)) (notations in orig inal). “[T] he starting point in considering a mot ion to seal court rec ords i s a ‘strong presumption i n fa v o r o f publ ic access to j u d i ci al p roce eding s.’” EEOC v. N at’l Children’s Ctr. Inc. , 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (D.C. C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (quoting Johnson v. Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Corp. , 951 F.2d 1268, 1277 (D

. C

. C i r. 1991)). Six fac to rs are g ener ally considere d when deter mining whether a movant has shown sufficie ntly compelling circ umstances to over come the pr esumption in favor of public acc ess: (1) the ne ed forpublic acc ess t o the documents at i ssue; (2) the extent of previous public acc ess t o the documents

at issue; (3) the fac t that someone has objected to disclosure, and the identity of that person; (4) the streng th of any proper t y or privac y interests asser ted; (5) the possibili ty of prejudice to those opposing disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the documents wer e i n t roduced during the judicial proce eding s. Hubbard , 650 F.2d at 317-22. DISCUSSIO N Plaintiff’s [32] Motion to S eal c onsists of a single para g raph: Plaintiff Valer ie Kline, pro se, filed documents in this case that should have been seale d b ec au se they contained protec ted inf ormation and should not be available for public viewing

. Specifica lly , Plaintiff submits that documents filed under Docke t Entry Nos. 1, 24 and 29 contain protec ted information and should be seale d. There fore , Plaintiff reque sts that this Court g rant the attache d proposed Or der f

or sea ling these documents. Pl.’s Mot. to Seal at 1. Plaintiff ’s cu rs o ry “m o t ion,” to the extent it can even be char acte rized as such, is woef

ully insufficient to overc ome the strong presumption in favor of public acc ess to judicial proce eding s. Moreove r, no motion to seal was filed at the time Plaintiff filed her pleading s on the public docket. To the extent Plaintiff believes all or part of the ref ere n ce d documents should be maintained under seal, she must addre ss eac h of the Hubbard fac tors and corr elate those fac tors to specific information in the ref ere nced documents. Among other things, Plaintiff must explain why sealing is appropr iate at this advanc ed date, when all the ref ere nced documents have been available to the public for a

minimum of five year s and five months. / / /

2CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the re asons set for

th above, it is, this 25th day of April, 2012, her eby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s [32] Motion to Seal is DENI ED WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Orde r to Plaintiff at her a ddress of r ecor d. SO ORDERED. /s/ COLLE EN KOLLAR-K OTEL LY United States District J udg e S i t t i n g a s t h e M o t i o n s J u d g e u n d e r L o c a l C i v i l R u l e 4 0

. 8

3